Total Pageviews

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Why YouTube buffers: The secret deals that make—and break—online video | Ars Technica: Excellent analysis including on CDN siting in ISP data centres: "In addition topeering with network operators, Google has what it calls the "Google Global Cache (GGC)." This "represents the final tier of Google’s content delivery platform and is closest to users," Google says in itsdescription of the service. "With GGC, network operators and Internet Service Providers deploy a small number of Google servers inside their network to serve popular Google content including YouTube. Google's traffic management system directs users to the node that will provide the best performance for the user. GGC can be located anywhere in an operator's network to maximize savings in backbone and transit bandwidth. Targeted deployment can reduce the number of route-miles traveled on an operator's network to serve Google traffic, further increasing cost savings for the operator."Google does not reveal which ISPs accept the equipment into their data centers. It's clear many do not, since ISPs have argued that Google and Netflix should be paying them, even though the caches are offered for free.
Netflix's similar peering and caching service is called Open Connect. ISPs can peer with Netflix at up to eight Internet exchange points for free "or can save even more transit costs by putting our free storage appliances in or near their network," Netflix says. Frontier, British Telecom, TDC, Clearwire, GVT, Telus, Bell Canada, Virgin, Cablevision, Google Fiber, Telmex, and RCN are among those who have done so.
"To us, it's really a black box that's run by Netflix," RCN VP of network services Peter Jacoby told Ars. "We do almost nothing except give it IP addresses. We put them in our data centers and that content gets a lot closer to our customers, so when they request a movie, typically the popular ones I'm told will stream from their closest cache and that eliminates a lot that can go wrong between them and Netflix."" 'via Blog this'

"Slow internet" could become legal in Brazil | ZDNet: "This is an amendment to the Marco Civil da Internet, a senate bill that has had its voting delayed for years and has become a priority for the country's government since details around NSA spying on Brazilians became public.
According to newspaper Folha de São Paulo, the changes in the Marco Civil - which, among other things, would prevent telcos from restricting connection speeds for different types of content accessed by users - now allows companies to provide slower internet services to customers that exceeded the limit set on contract.
If the bill is approved by the Senate, providers will be able to not only reduce speeds but also prevent users from accessing services such as such as torrents and streaming - so in practice, they would have legal backing for their existing practices." 'via Blog this'

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Why the EU Commission's True Intent is to Kill Net Neutrality | La Quadrature du Net: "While seemingly defending Net neutrality principle by banning blocking and throttling Internet communications, the Commission wants to make it meaningless by explicitly allowing prioritization, which is another form of discrimination (prioritization is another word for the more technical term of "guaranteed" or "differentiated" "Quality of Service", as opposed to the traditional "best-effort" model for the delivery of Internet traffic).
What is more, the draft text also proposes that, “in the pursuit of the foregoing freedom (sic)”, telecom operators should be free to impose data caps on users. Finally, it aims at preventing national authorities from protecting online freedom of expression and innovation by introducing real protections for Net neutrality.
From the leaked document, it seems clear that far from introducing a real protection for the open and neutral Internet, the EU Commissioner for the Digital Agenda Neelie Kroes wants to grant the telecom lobby its long-lasting demand to implement traffic management measures and pricing schemes that would boost their revenues at the expense of freedom of communication and innovation."
Of course, I heard the Commissioner's 3 June speech announcing her non-neutral neutrality policy and immediately explained that she was opposed to neutrality. This won't be pretty! 'via Blog this'

Thursday, July 25, 2013

90 Percent of Eligible Kansas City Neighborhoods Sign Up For Google Fiber - Slashdot: Anonymous so not sure what quotation marks add, but allegedly..."Larry Page is really annoyed by the "no servers" clause. In an internal weekly all-hands meeting he repeatedly needled Patrick Pichette about the limitation, and pointedly reminded him that the only reason Google was able to get off the ground was because Page and Brin could use Stanford's high-speed Internet connection for free. Page wants to see great garage startups being enabled by cheap access to truly high-speed Internet. Pichette defended it saying they had no intention of trying to enforce it in general, but that it had to be there in case of serious abuse, like someone setting up a large-scale data center.
I don't think anyone really has to worry about running servers on their residential Google Fiber, as long as they're not doing anything crazy. Then again it's always possible that Page will change his mind or that the lawyers will take over the company, and the ToS is what it is. If I had Google Fiber I'd run my home server just as I do on my Comcast connection, but I'd also be prepared to look for other options if my provider complained." 'via Blog this'

FCC orders Google to Respond to Net Neutrality Complaint — Future Participle — Medium: "Douglas McClendon filed a complaint contesting the rules to the FCC in 2012 when he was a Fiber “pre-subscriber” living in Kansas. After some odd procedural missteps, the FCC sent McClendon’s 53-page complaint on to Google on June 24 as an “informal complaint.”
That notice requires Google to reply to McClendon and the FCC by Monday, July 29. The FCC can then, if it chooses, open a formal complaint and investigate on its own.
McClendon, a software engineer, points out in his rambling complaint, that the Terms of Service prohibit a Google Fiber customer from running lawful and non-disruptive devices." 'via Blog this'

ISP Free cleared of throttling YouTube in France | ZDNet: "The investigation is part of a wider debate on net neutrality in the country and whether big internet companies should be required to pay ISPs to ensure quality of access for heavy-traffic services. Google is already paying Free's rival Orange as compensation for the amount of traffic its service generate over the ISPs networks, its CEO said recently, though he did not reveal the size of the payment.
Requiring content providers to pay in this way could lead to larger, more profitable companies being able to buy higher quality of access than smaller companies and individuals, who would have to offer a slower or otherwise compromised experience — a situation which would contravene the idea of net neutrality and lead to a "two-tier internet".
Earlier this year, it looked as though France would enshrine the idea of net neutrality — the idea that all online services and content are treated the same way — in law; however, it appears the legislation has now been kicked into the long grass." 'via Blog this'

Monday, July 15, 2013

BBC News - Net firms raided over broadband 'throttling': "European Commission competition officials visited Deutsche Telekom, Orange and Telefonica's head offices. The raids were part of a probe into alleged uncompetitive market practices by the three firms. The probe was kicked off by complaints made by US net firm Cogent. It claims that the three ISPs are holding back net traffic from Cogent so their own data arrived more quickly.
Cogent acts as a network middleman and delivers traffic to many European ISPs on behalf of net companies such as YouTube. The "throttling" made Cogent's services appear to be slower than those being run by the European ISPs, it said." 'via Blog this'

Leaked EU Laws and Police Raid on ISPs Raise Net Neutrality Concerns - ISPreview UK: "But what all of this ultimately boils down to is the placing of a general commitment upon ISPs to improve the transparency of their service speeds and any relevant restrictions on internet access, which is intended to help consumers make a more informed choice about which ISP they choose.
ISPs will thus be discouraged from imposing unwarranted blocking and or traffic restrictions. But so long as they’re transparent with customers about imposing such things then they’ll probably be safe from enforcement. It’s worth noting that many providers in the United Kingdom already do this"
The new Regulation will be a whitewash, and in any case volume restrictions are a pathetic proxy for traffic congestion! 'via Blog this'

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Google Traductor: so may be some mistakes "When the regulation was put in place?What is the other method? There is a draft Federal Ministry of Economics net neutrality regulation.Before it is decided by the federal government, other departments need to consider these and also get the interested parties the opportunity to comment.The design is now public and available to anyone.We seek a decision of the Federal Government in the summer of 2013.Then the Bundestag and Bundesrat are required.Why is net neutrality governed by regulation and not by law? we do not need a separate law on net neutrality, because the principles of net neutrality are enshrined in law the Telecommunications Act since 2012.The Telecommunications Act already requires today that the network operator to ensure both access to content and applications as well as data transmission without discrimination.However, the law allows the federal government to adopt a regulation to ensure net neutrality, in which the details are clarified.From this legislative leeway we now make use of.The ordinance is in effect to a law in nothing.

How does the regulation affects the preferential treatment operation of Deutsche Telekom services - such as the television service Entertain? The Regulation does not aim at German Telekom, but takes all the network operators in the duty.By regulation, the Agency will continue to review all business practices of network operators to comply with the network neutrality.However, it is true that the Agency can verify by means of the regulation whether the telecoms should treat their television service Entertain preferred." 'via Blog this'

Tuesday, July 09, 2013

REPORT on connected TV - A7-0212/2013: "Existing ‘Must-carry’ rules need to be supplemented with ‘Must-be-found’ rules. Those content providers should be given an appropriately privileged status with regard to findability on hybrid platforms (including portals, home pages and EPGs) to which the Member States assign a public broadcasting remit or which help to promote objectives in the public interest, such as ensuring media pluralism and cultural diversity, or which undertake to carry out duties which maintain the quality and independence of reporting and promote diversity of opinion. Those who are subject to the stricter rules for linear and non-linear media services laid down in the Audiovisual Media Services Directive or who voluntarily agree to comply with those rules should therefore have the opportunity to acquire a more prominent position on platforms. Consideration should also be given to new forms of incentive schemes.

It is important to try to establish an appropriate balance of power between market parties, especially device manufacturers and content providers, and particularly in the case of integrated services. Individual content providers must also be prevented from gaining an unfair advantage in relation to the dissemination of their content.

The Audiovisual Media Services Directive (2010/13/EU) needs to be further developed in such a way that it also comprehensively regulates operators of hybrid portals and platforms. Anyone who has significant control over the diversity of content and opinions reaching an end-user should also be subject to regulation to safeguard that diversity of content and opinions.

It should be ensured that devices, platforms and portals are designed on the basis of an open, non-proprietary and interoperable standard. Only in this way can non-discriminatory and technologically neutral access to all content be guaranteed." 'via Blog this'